The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC) statement that the Conservation Fund that supports the vast majority of fish, wildlife, marine resources and habitat programs in the state is millions of dollars in deficit is true. The DEC also says that an across-the-board license increase must be implemented to keep programs from being drastically cut or eliminated. Admittedly, the last sporting license fee increase in New York was in 2002. In the intervening years since that increase, the number of licenses sold annually has dropped and administrative costs have risen. So it wouldn’t take a rocket scientist to understand why such a deficit exists, at least on paper.
Faced with the threat of either paying up or seeing programs slashed, the NYS Conservation Council (NYSCC) has basically agreed that fee increases were needed. However, the NYS Conservation Fund Advisory Board (CFAB) has recently taken a stand against any fee increases until other stakeholders that use and benefit from our natural resources pay an excise tax on their outdoor equipment and services, just as sportsmen have been doing for years. This along with a new saltwater fishing license that is going to be made mandatory by the feds and may result in the state creating its own could certainly add millions to the Fund and keep programs afloat. On the surface, this may seem to be the remedy, but is it really?
Fishing in Lake Ontario and its main tributaries generates nearly $200M in annual revenues. Statewide, a Cornell study found that statewide freshwater fishing generated an economic impact of $3.6B annually. Hunting and trapping generates another $1.1B. And the Department of the Interior has said that $740.9M in excise taxes will be distributed this year to the fish and wildlife agencies of the 50 states to fund fish and wildlife conservation.
Now let’s start considering the other natural resource users in the state. When we consider all the various stakeholders – snowmobilers, ATVers, hikers, campers, birders, horseback riders, canoeists and kayakers, etc., etc.—even a modest user fee or excise tax on their gear would bring in a windfall to the Conservation Fund. But, and this is a big but, who would decide where and how these extra funds would be spent Some, such as snowmobilers and ATVers are already contributing, but primarily to the General Fund. However, with the state currently trying to repair a huge budget deficit, it’s rather doubtful it would like to see additional money switched from the General Fund to the Conservation Fund, regardless of its source.
Remember that New York’s natural resources parent agency is primarily an environmental one rather than a conservation one, so the initial responsibility would likely be of that priority. There’s already friction among the various stakeholders over who wants what, when and how much. Now imagine what would occur if they all were lobbying Albany over those issues. You think things are bad now?
